Supreme Court upholds arrest of K Rajasekhar Reddy in ₹3,200 crore liquor scam

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the arrest of K Rajasekhar Reddy, a key accused in the ₹3,200-crore Andhra Pradesh liquor scam [Kasireddy Upender Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.]..Reddy had served as an IT advisor to former Andhra Chief Minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy.A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that his arrest did not violate constitutional protections under Article 22 or statutory requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)."For the purposes of Clause (1) of Article 22, it is not necessary for the authorities to furnish full details of the offence. However, the information should be sufficient to enable the arrested person to understand why he has been arrested. The grounds to be communicated to the arrested person should be somewhat similar to the charge framed by the Court for the trial of a case...We do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed,” the Court ordered..Reddy was arrested in April 2025 at Hyderabad airport by the Andhra Pradesh CID under various provisions of and various provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The remand order stated that he was the "key person" behind the alleged ₹3,200 crore kickback-driven liquor trade in Andhra Pradesh.He approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court with a Habeas Corpus petition challenging the legality of his arrest. The High Court dismissed the plea on May 8, stating that the arrest and subsequent remand were in compliance with constitutional and statutory safeguards. The decision was then appealed before the Supreme Court..Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Reddy, argued that arrest was mala fide and premeditated since the accused was not named in the FIR and had only been added as an accused via a case diary entry two days before arrest.The accused had voluntarily agreed to appear before the CID and was misled into believing he was only being summoned as a witness under Section 179 BNSS.The grounds of arrest served were vague, lacked material particulars, and violated the mandates of Article 22 and Section 47 BNSS. The inclusion of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act was illegal due to lack of sanction under Section 17A, which was only granted in relation to a co-accused and not the petitioner’s son, it was contended..Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the State, defended the arrest, arguing that the grounds of arrest including a detailed description of the role played by the accused in the conspiracy, were provided both at the time of arrest and during remand.The accused was produced before a magistrate within 24 hours other procedural safeguards under BNSS were also fully complied with, it was pointed out..After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision.It said that the reasons for the arrest, when considered in their entirety, were "meaningful" and not merely an "eye wash," thereby allowing the accused to comprehend the basis of the arrest and prepare an effective legal defense."Having looked into the grounds of arrest which were supplied to the son of the appellant at the time of his arrest, it is difficult for us to take the view that the grounds do not make any sense or are not meaningful or are just an eyewash," the Court said..It distinguished the present case from Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana, noting that unlike in Vihaan Kumar, the accused in this case had been served with the grounds of arrest and the remand report in a timely and sufficient manner.The Court reiterated that the obligation to inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a "mandatory constitutional requirement" under Article 22(1), but in this case, that requirement had been met..Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.However, it clarified that the accused was free to apply for regular bail and any pending bail application must be heard expeditiously in accordance with law..Besides Jethmalani, advocates Krishna Kumar Singh, Sriharsha Peechara and Yashaswi Sk Chocksey appeared for Reddy.Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal and Advocates Guntur Pramod Kumar, Prerna Singh, Samarth Krishan Luthra, Rajni Gupta, Vishwajeet Singh, Dhruv Yadav and Suhail Ahmed also appeared for the respondent..[Read Order]